LETTERS

Not on the side, please

Your cattle rustling article (April 2006) had some good information for beef producers, and I do think branding is probably necessary to keep this problem from escalating.

However, to promote Beef Quality Assurance and the beef industry in general, showing a picture of a steer with a side brand makes me cringe, especially as an alumni of Colorado State. Colorado State University’s Department of Animal Science did much of the auditing at packing plants for the National Beef Quality Assurance report. Beef Quality Assurance doesn’t discourage people from branding, but it discourages side-branding and using multiple brands. Such branding ruins the hides of the animals. I am sure there aren’t many folks that really want a car seat with a brand in the middle—maybe a few ranchers wouldn’t mind it, but the majority of people don’t want a brand on their leather goods.

Moving the brand to the hip is much better than side branding. Colorado State has an extension team that educates and shows first hand what brands do to the value of a hide, especially the use of multiple brands and side brands. In essence, the beef industry as a whole loses money.

I encourage producers who choose to brand as a way to identify their animals to apply the brand on the rear hip—or even above the front leg.

Wendy R. Flatt

Extension livestock specialist

University of Missouri

Fayette, Mo.

On parallel

I enjoyed your editorial about parallel agriculture (April 2006). In fact, it’s the best thing I’ve seen written on this subject—one that is tearing Missouri agriculture and small communities apart. We’ve got a terrible problem, and I don’t know how to solve it, but I’m sure that exporting the livestock industry to Brazil isn’t the best way. That’s the direction we’re headed.

Blake Hurst

Tarkio, Mo.